Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[Brainster]

I guess that's up to those building the mosque to decide for themselves, right?

Yep. I'm not proposing that the government put up undue opposition to the project. I'm suggesting that the imam and his followers should recognize the mistake they've made and voluntarily find another site.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yep. I'm not proposing that the government put up undue opposition to the project. I'm suggesting that the imam and his followers should recognize the mistake they've made and voluntarily find another site.

You do realize that there is opposition to building mosques elsewhere in the country as well, right? How far from ground zero is far enough? Why is it ok to have strip-clubs on hallowed grounds but not an Islamic institution? Why appease the bigots?

 

[Brainster]

one can asssume that the FBI would be all over this Immam, searching for terrorist ties, which he would most likely have.

but if he didn't, and was just a dick, I would have issues with such an Immam building a Mosque anywhere in the USA. We don't need bigots building houses of worship.

But which of the high-minded reasons offered for supporting the mosque currently has changed in my hypothetical? Freedom of religion? Nope, that should still apply. Private property rights? Nope, that would still apply. Lots of other sleazy businesses in the area? Nope.

 

[A'isha]

Yep. I'm not proposing that the government put up undue opposition to the project. I'm suggesting that the imam and his followers should recognize the mistake they've made and voluntarily find another site.

What "mistake" would that be?

 

[Cleon]

Dodge noted. Answer the question: Would you oppose the mosque if it was being built by a radical Wahhabist imam who celebrated the attacks and admitted that his goal was a monument to the terrorists?

I have no idea what sort of point you're trying to make, so I'll bite:

Yes, even if the mosque was run by radicals who want to spread the message of Islamic fundamentalism and sing the praises of Osama bin Laden, they would still have the right to do so. I am not alone in this opinion, and I don't think anyone would consider Skeptic to be sympathetic to the fundamentalists.

However, Park51 is not being built by fundamentalists, despite some extremely pathetic attempts to paint them as such. So why does the hypothetical bear any relevance to the situation at hand?

 

[Kestrel]

What "mistake" would that be?

Not pandering to the bigotry and racism of the American right wing.

 

[Neally]

Give me ONE good reason why this Immam should be asked to repudiate 9-11.

Because there is a concern that the center due to it's location might attract extremists. Apparently he has already commented on this which makes me more comfortable with the go ahead.

Still looking for you or anyone else to explain the hate for Reid's comments, as if you somehow know that he really doesn't believe the way the majority of the rest of the U.S. believes and he is lying just to get votes.

 

[Cleon]

What "mistake" would that be?

The "mistake" of pissing off people who have an irrational fear, hatred, and/or distrust of Muslims.

That's the thing about the people whining about being called "bigots." Well, sorry to say, that's about the size of it: only two basic lines of argument have been presented. One associates all of Islam with 9/11. That's bigotry, plain and simple. The other one, that Brainster has been pushing, is that it might "offend" people. Who will it offend? Well, the people who associate all of Islam with 9/11.

The arguments against the mosque either boil down to bigotry or saying that the Muslims should placate the bigots. I find these arguments...unconvincing. (The MA will not permit me to post my full reaction.)

 

[Cleon]

Because there is a concern that the center due to it's location might attract extremists.

Not a concern based on reason, logic, or evidence. Extremists will not be visiting this mosque. Extremists view the people building this mosque as their enemy.

Apparently he has already commented on this which makes me more comfortable with the go ahead.

Just imagine if you'd bothered looking that up before deciding to suspect him of being an extremist.

Still looking for you or anyone else to explain the hate for Reid's comments, as if you somehow know that he really doesn't believe the way the majority of the rest of the U.S. believes and he is lying just to get votes.

Because when Democrats find themselves in fierce election battles, everything that comes out of their mouths is engineered for maximum political benefit. Doubly so when it's a long-time career politician.

Chalk it up to general cynicism about American politics.

 

[marksman]

Yes, even if the mosque was run by radicals who want to spread the message of Islamic fundamentalism and sing the praises of Osama bin Laden, they would still have the right to do so. I am not alone in this opinion, and I don't think anyone would consider Skeptic to be sympathetic to the fundamentalists.

However, Park51 is not being built by fundamentalists, despite some extremely pathetic attempts to paint them as such. So why does the hypothetical bear any relevance to the situation at hand?

I agree entirely with this statement. I would add that I would not be surprised if the government investigates someone who were to make statements in support of terrorists to see if they have committed crimes. But, unless such investigations yield fruit, I would have no problem with such imams building mosques in the shadow of the World Trade Center, or even in the Center itself (assuming they convinced the property owners to allow it).

 

[thaiboxerken]

A muslim mosque "close" to ground zero might attract extremists? How? What about Mosques in Nashville or Gainesville?

 

[A'isha]

Because there is a concern that the center due to it's location might attract extremists.

Yes, we can't be too careful or anything, because the risk of radical Islamic fundamentalist extremists like the Wahhabist Sunni Muslims who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks being attracted to a Sufi-led mosque because it's near Ground Zero is right up there with the risk of raging Neo-Nazi thugs being attracted to a synagogue because it's in Nuremberg.

 

[Thunder]

Because there is a concern that the center due to it's location might attract extremists.

Yes. This is a concern voiced by bigots and extremists.

 

[willhaven]

I'm suggesting that the imam and his followers should recognize the mistake they've made and voluntarily find another site.

Maybe those who are up in arms about a mosque near the WTC site should recognize the mistake of ascribing the actions of murderers driven by an extreme version of Islam to moderate Muslims.

The argument cuts both ways, the 1st and 14th amendments don't.

 

[elbe]

Can we shame the people who oppose it by arguing for the more capitalist solution? They have the money, the property is for sale, let 'em buy it and build whatever. Why do so many people hate the free market?

 

[Foolmewunz]

A muslim mosque "close" to ground zero might attract extremists? How? What about Mosques in Nashville or Gainesville?

Or Jersey City. Surely that's three or four miles away from Manhattan so wouldn't attract extemists. Oh, wait...

 

[pgwenthold]

It's been interesting to watch the scrambling of the mosque opponents in this thread.

"It sullies the sacred ground of GZ!"
"But the porn shops don't sully the sacred ground?"
"Well they don't advocate terrorist attacks on the US!"
"The Muslim sect in the thing is not the same that carries out terrorist attacks"
"But they haven't repudiated the attacks"
"Actually, the leader of the group DID repudiate the attacks"
(someone forgot to ask - are the owners of the sex stores on record as repudiating the attacks? That requirement only applies to muslims)

It's very clearly desperation. That doesn't even include Nealy's attempt to use the court case in Florida, which was thoroughly demolished as being not relevant.

 

[332nd]

Thunder supports it.

Let's switch it around, shall we? Suppose the mosque was being built by a radical Wahhabist imam, who had celebrated the attacks on 9-11 and who admitted that his goal was to erect a monument to the terrorists. Would you oppose it then?

Yes. What's your point?

 

[hgc]

...
Still looking for you or anyone else to explain the hate for Reid's comments, as if you somehow know that he really doesn't believe the way the majority of the rest of the U.S. believes and he is lying just to get votes.

I can't read his mind. So I credit him with believing what he said. That makes me sad.

 

[Brainster]

Yes. What's your point?

My point is that all the arguments in favor of the mosque raised by its defenders would still apply--freedom of religion, private property rights, other sleazy businesses in the area--and yet more people, like you, Thunder and TBK would oppose it. Indeed, Thunder goes further and says he would oppose it anywhere, not just at ground zero.

So really, those arguments are just so much eyewash. What you really mean is that you don't oppose this particular mosque because you believe that the imam has said the appropriate things, and is not a radical. So let's debate that part, not the first amendment.